Manley foresees opening of telecom industry

Canadian Press

TORONTO -- The new Conservative government will likely want to start reforming Canada's telecommunications policy quickly and probably won't see much serious opposition from the Liberals, former Liberal industry minister John Manley says.

Mr. Manley, a former deputy prime minister who also served as minister responsible for telecom policy in the Chrétien government, was commenting yesterday on sweeping recommendations released in Ottawa last week by a special federal panel.

"It's an agenda for a new government which they can adopt if they wish to implement it," Mr. Manley said at a presentation by the law firm McCarthy Tétrault, which was involved in drafting the report.

Mr. Manley said the government will probably use foreign ownership restrictions as a bargaining chip in multinational trade negotiations but won't necessarily wait for those talks to conclude before opening up some parts of the Canadian telecom industry, he said.

The panel's report recommends a two-stage approach to liberalizing rules that limit or prevent Canadian telephone and cable carriers from being controlled by foreign interests. Initially, the rules could be relaxed for the foreign ownership of startup companies and carriers that control less than 10 per cent of the market, he said.

"Seeing foreign ownership as a vehicle for improving the competitive nature of the economy is clearly a gain for Canada, whether we get something from our negotiating partners or not," Mr. Manley said.

"But I think as a first step, the government is going to want to see what they can find by way of tradeoffs in international trade negotiations to try to get there." Mr. Manley said there's been a trend toward greater liberalization in Canada and elsewhere.

In Ottawa, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers union urged an end to trade talks that would open Canada's telephone industry to foreign ownership.

Condolences to a fellow blog

When Manley pulled out, many people offered their condolences. Now it is the turn for this blog to offer them. Godspeed and good luck

Martin Cauchon for PM

Cauchon to join list of heavyweight Liberals passing up leadership bout

By JOAN BRYDEN

OTTAWA (CP) - Martin Cauchon is poised to join the list of star Liberals taking a pass on the once-mighty party's leadership.

The former justice minister is expected to announce later this week that he won't throw his hat in the ring to succeed Paul Martin.

According to insiders close to the Chretien-era minister, Cauchon has decided he can't pursue the leadership without sacrificing his commitment to his young family. Cauchon, currently practising law in Montreal, is father to three children under the age of eight.

Cauchon's decision brings to five the number of heavyweight candidates who've bowed out of the race - almost twice the number who've actually declared their candidacy so far.

Among those who won't run are former premiers Frank McKenna and Brian Tobin, former deputy prime minister John Manley and former minister Allan Rock.

Only three candidates have declared their intention to run so far - Toronto lawyer Martha Hall Findlay, former junior minister John Godfrey and bad boy fiddler Ashley MacIsaac, whom some Liberals privately suspect is using the contest to promote his latest album.

In early February, Cauchon came close to announcing that he would not run. But his core organizers urged him to take a little more time before reaching a conclusion.

Then in late February, Cauchon gave a speech at the University of Ottawa in which he seemed to be positioning himself as the candidate of change. He challenged Liberal orthodoxy by appearing to endorse the notion of a fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces and indicating a willingness to at least debate private delivery of public health care.

An insider close to Cauchon acknowledged that the speech was intended to position the former minister for the leadership race, particularly hoping to capture support in his home province of Quebec.

However, the insider said: "At the end of the day, the family argument was too strong."

Cauchon had put together a reasonably strong organization, which included some of former prime minister Jean Chretien's senior strategists such as Paul Genest and Raj Chahal. The insider doubted Cauchon's team would move en masse to any other candidate.

Nearly 20 potential candidates are testing the waters, although many may ultimately decide not to take the plunge. The vast majority hail from Toronto so the loss of a non-Toronto candidate like Cauchon is significant for a party that contends it is national in scope.

Among the putative contenders are former ministers Stephane Dion, Joe Volpe, Maurizio Bevilacqua, Ken Dryden, Denis Coderre, Belinda Stronach, Scott Brison and Ralph Goodale, acclaimed academic and rookie MP Michael Ignatieff and former Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae.

A successor to Martin will be chosen at a convention in Montreal from Nov. 29 to Dec. 3.

John Manley Encouraged to re-enter race

Important part left in context near end of article


Rae speaks today, and Liberals are listening
Ex-NDP premier not expected to formally announce leadership bid yet
But Winnipeg address raises profile in a crowded field of potential rivals
Mar. 13, 2006. 01:00 AM
SEAN GORDON
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA—So far it's a race with only one entrant, but Liberal leadership watchers will cast an interested eye toward Winnipeg today as former Ontario premier Bob Rae returns to the limelight with a speech to the Canadian Club.

Few expect Rae will formally signal his intentions — some senior Liberals suggest he will first come out and publicly brand himself as a party supporter — but many will be keen to hear what the former provincial NDP leader has to say about his vision for the country.

"He's in. Everybody basically knows that. Now it's a question of him talking about where he would take the party and the country," said a senior Liberal close to the leadership process.

By most counts, there are at least 16 people actively considering leadership runs, though the only official candidate is 46-year-old lawyer Martha Hall Findlay.

Some Liberals are predicting the wide-open race will heal much of the lingering rift between supporters of former prime minister Jean Chrétien and those of the man who ousted him, Paul Martin.

"It's going to be a campaign of new ideas," said Liberal Senator Jim Munson, a former Chrétien aide.

Rae would benefit from support within the Liberal establishment — his brother John ran Chrétien's campaigns, and former PMO adviser Eddie Goldenberg is a lifelong friend — and could be pitted against his old University of Toronto roommate, Etobicoke-Lakeshore MP Michael Ignatieff.

Many of the Liberal hopefuls, including Ignatieff, were in Nova Scotia earlier this month for what Findlay termed "the unofficial kickoff" of the race.

Former Tory leadership candidate and Liberal cabinet minister Belinda Stronach is organizing aggressively in Quebec and elsewhere in the country, and is widely expected to enter the race. Others mulling a bid include Stronach's former Ontario cabinet colleagues Joe Volpe, Carolyn Bennett, Ken Dryden, Tony Ianno and John Godfrey.

One-time ministers like Ralph Goodale, Maurizio Bevilacqua, Stéphane Dion, Denis Coderre and Hedy Fry are also weighing their options, as is Ottawa Liberal MP David McGuinty.

Ontario Education Minister Gerard Kennedy is also an intriguing possibility — he's bilingual and originally from Manitoba — although he hasn't been convinced to take the plunge.

It was expected former public works minister Scott Brison would be the leading Atlantic Canadian candidate, but party sources said his fundraising potential has been curtailed by last week's imbroglio over an email sent to a Bay Street acquaintance ahead of an income-trust announcement last fall.

Other candidacies remain in the realm of rumours. Former deputy prime minister John Manley, for instance, is facing pressure to reconsider his earlier refusal to run.

The list will continue shifting as the hopefuls jockey for position. The Liberal party's executive will determine the timing and rules for the race at a meeting on the weekend of March 25.

Vietnam thinks Manley was Prime Minister, why don't we?

420 million VND donation to HCM City Tumour Centre
03/06/2006 -- 22:26(GMT+7)

HCM City, Mar. 6 (VNA) - Sanjeev Chowdhury, Canadian Consul General in Ho Chi Minh City, on March 6 donated 420 million VND, collected from the 9th Terry Fox Marathon - 2005, jointly organised by the Canadian Consulate General and the Manulife Company, to the Ho Chi Minh City Tumour Centre.

Former Canadian Prime Minister John Manley was present at the presentation ceremony.

Prof. Nguyen Chan Hung, Director of the HCM City Tumour Centre, said that over the past three years, the centre has received more than 1 billion VND from the Canadian Consulate General, raised from the 7th, 8th and 9th Terry Fox Marathons. The amounts have been disbursed for an investigation on cancer in Ho Chi Minh City and southern provinces.

Terry Fox was a young Canadian man who during his short life overcame his cancer running to raise funds for cancer research. The last annual race named after him drew more than 4,500 participants in HCM City.

In addition to the organisation of the Terry Fox Marathon in the city, Consul General Chowdhury has also held many charity programmes to help orphans and handicapped children in Ho Chi Minh City.-Enditem

John Manley Signs Letter Dissing Parts Of Gomery

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper,
Prime Minister of Canada,
House of Commons,
Ottawa K1A 0A6

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing to you in response to the Gomery Commission’s second report (the “Report”), which was made public on February 1st. The signatories of this letter include private sector leaders, representatives of the voluntary sector, former senior officials in provincial and federal governments, and former political eaders of different partisan stripes from across the country.

We are united by two major beliefs: that Canada is best served by a professional, non-partisan public service, and that any changes to existing governance systems should not reduce the powers and accountability of elected representatives.

The Commission makes a number of useful recommendations which, if
implemented, should serve to improve how we are governed. Unfortunately, the Report also includes some other recommendations that do not take adequate account of how governments actually function, and thus could do a good deal of harm. It is for this reason that we have decided to write to you.

The useful recommendations include:

- providing increased resources to enable Parliamentary committees, and
particularly the Public Accounts Committee, to function more effectively

- more effective regulation of lobbyists

- prohibiting political staffs from giving instructions to officials

- de-politicizing the appointment of Crown corporation CEOs and directors

- reducing the rate of turn-over of Deputy Ministers

- avoiding the imposition of further regulations and red tape on the operations of government

- making government more transparent

However, the Report also includes four major recommendations that cause us concern: the proposal that the public service should assert a constitutional identity independent of elected governments, a new system for the appointment of Deputy Ministers, a change in the role of the Clerk of the Privy Council, and the requirement that Ministers issue written instructions if they wish to over-rule administrative measures recommended by their Deputy Ministers.

At the outset of his Report, Justice Gomery says, “It is not the
Commission’s intention to recommend radical solutions, a transformation of
our parliamentary system, or a complete overhaul of the doctrine of
ministerial responsibility.” Some of his recommendations would, in fact,
amount to changes of this order, and we believe they are out of proportion
to the problem he was asked to address. Justice Gomery acknowledges in several passages that the Sponsorship scandal was an aberration, and in no way was representative of present day governance in Canada. Yet the
Commission’s response is quite drastic.

At the heart of the Report is the proposition that unelected public servants possess, and should assert, a constitutional identity independent of Ministers. The Report speaks of “tensions between the duty of the public service to serve the Government, and its ethical obligation to promote the public interest”, and proposes that when such tensions arise in the management and administration of government programs, the views of officials
should prevail.

Such a system would represent a major departure from how governments function in Canada. We are opposed to increasing the powers of unelected officials at the expense of Ministers. For the public service to assert a constitutional identity of its own, and not to be subject to direction by Ministers in the fields of management and administration, would break the chain of accountability that today culminates with Ministers. The result would be confusion as to who was accountable to Parliament for what.

In addition, for this proposal to be workable, it would be necessary to
effect a clear separation between the roles of Ministers and officials.
Experience demonstrates that this is impossible. No one has ever found a way of unscrambling the governance omelet in which politics, policy, management, and administration are mixed. To use an example cited in the Report, how is one to separate politics from administration when a Minister and officials disagree about the application of a set of financial rules to a particular situation?

To point out, as the Report does, that Deputy Ministers have statutory
responsibilities under the Financial Administration Act, does not advance
matters, since Ministers too have statutory responsibilities, and they
include “the management and direction of the department”. There has never
been any determination of what is to happen when the two statutes conflict, nor could there be, given the impossibility of establishing a clear and
durable separation of politics from management. In any case, when such
conflicts arise, legal analyses are usually not much help.

Another part of the Report that causes us serious concern is the
recommendation that in future, Deputy Ministers should be chosen by their Ministers. We strongly believe that Canada should retain the current
practice in which Deputy Ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister. This
practice serves to underline to all concerned that a Deputy’s knowledge,
loyalty, and engagement must extend beyond a single department to the whole of government. This concept of a Deputy’s responsibility is a precondition for managing issues effectively and offering policy advice on difficult questions that cross traditional portfolio boundaries.

If Deputies were to be appointed to serve the specific interests of a
Minister and his/her department, there is a risk that this could exacerbate the problem of “silos” that bedevil most large organizations and
particularly governments. The Deputy Minister is key to ensuring that the
department does not lose sight of government priorities.

We also believe that the selection of these officials, who will be a key
source of support to you and your Cabinet colleagues, is too important a
task to entrust to any kind of independent selection system detached from the political process. You, as the head of the government, need the ability to organize it in ways that best respond to your objectives, and to place in the most senior positions the professionals who, in your judgment, are best able to meet the needs of a particular department and agency. It is difficult to contemplate how any large business organization would survive if vice presidents and senior officers were selected by a group independent
of the CEO.

It follows that the Clerk of the Privy Council should continue to be your
advisor on Deputy Minister appointments. More broadly, we believe that the Clerk should function as your Deputy Minister in all respects, and should not, as the Report proposes, merely be a representative of the public
service.

The Report proposes that in situations where an important disagreement between a Minister and a Deputy cannot be resolved, the Minister could over-rule the Deputy only by issuing a written instruction that the Deputy would then send to the Comptroller General and would also be available to the Auditor General. We have very serious concerns about instituting such a practice.

The Commission’s recommendation is modeled on a British system that was
instituted many years ago. In Britain, the system the Commission has in mind exists mostly in theory and is far from being a normal practice. An analysis by a Canadian academic has found only 37 cases of a Minister issuing a written instruction in the past 23 years, or 1.6 cases per year across the entire British government. Moreover, most of these cases involved the heads of what the British call Executive Agencies rather than departments. The Permanent Secretaries – the British equivalent of our Deputy Ministers – almost never avail themselves of their right to seek a written instruction.

The reasons are obvious. A system whereby officials regularly insisted on
being issued written instructions would simply be unworkable because of its destructive effects on the working partnership that is indispensable to any successful relationship between a Minister and a Deputy.

Moreover, there is no need to institute such a system in Canada to guard against Ministers at times making decisions that were contrary to the public interest. In cases where a Minister insists upon proceeding with an improper decision, the established practice is for the Deputy to inform the Clerk of the Privy Council, who in turn can bring the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister. The resolution of the matter then lies with the Prime Minister and the Minister, who will be accountable to Parliament for the outcome. In the extremely rare event of a Prime Minister supporting an improper action by the Minister, there is every probability that the decision taken would become known, whether through internal audits that are now routinely made public, or through the work of the Auditor General, or through the Access to Information Act – as was recently demonstrated in the
case of the Sponsorship scandal. The electorate would then be in a position
to render a judgment about the issue.

We are also puzzled by the Commission’s recommendations concerning appearances of officials before Parliamentary committees. The Report devotes a considerable amount of text to a perceived problem in officials appearing only on behalf of their Ministers, although at a later point it acknowledges that “little will change” if in future officials should be required to appear in their own right.

The concept that officials appear on behalf of their Ministers is largely a
formality and primarily serves to keep intact the chain of accountability
that culminates with the Minister. In practice, it is of about the same
import as the formal designation of the Governor General as
Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Officials are always at the call of Parliamentary committees, and are required to show Parliament that proper financial procedures are being followed and that public funds are being properly and well managed. It is simply out of the question that a Deputy Minister of Transport, in appearing before the Public Accounts Committee to explain a cost over-run on the construction of an ice
breaker, would somehow seek to shelter behind the notion that he/she was only appearing on behalf of the Minister.

In the same vein, the recommendation that officials rather than Ministers
should appear before the Public Accounts Committee simply calls for what is the established practice. We find it puzzling that the Report takes no cognizance of the fact that, for decades, Ministers have appeared before this Committee only in the most exceptional circumstances. Officials, for their part, can be and are required to give an accounting to the Committee for all aspects of departmental management, and sometimes are given the benefit of the Committee’s views in response.

In conclusion, we wish to state that we were reassured by your prudent
response to the Commission’s Report when it first appeared. Some measures in the Report, which we summarized at the beginning of this letter, would improve governance in Canada, and we hope you will implement them. As you have pointed out, many of these measures coincide with the provisions of the Accountability Act to which you committed yourself during the election campaign.

However, other recommendations in the Report deal with complex matters and could have far reaching effects – effects that in some cases, we believe, would be very damaging. It is important that you should take enough time to make a careful assessment of your own before deciding which of Justice Gomery’s recommendations.

Sincerely,

Bill Ardell
Former CEO
Southam Inc.

Tom Axworthy
Chairman - Centre for the Study of Democracy
Queen’s University

Charles A Baillie
Chancellor of Queens University
President-Art Gallery of Ontario

Peter Barnes
Former Secretary to the Cabinet
Government of Ontario

The Hon. Allan Blakeney
Former Premier of Saskatchewan

Rita Burak
Former Secretary to the Cabinet
Government of Ontario

Helen Burstyn
President
Public Projects

Tim Casgrain
Chairman
Skyservice Airlines

Ian D. Clark
President, Council of Ontario Universities
Former Secretary of the Treasury Board and Comptroller General of Canada

Professor Tom Courchene
Queen’s University

Jim Coutts
Personal Secretary to Prime Minister Pearson (1963-66)
Principal Secretary to Prime Minister Trudeau (1975-81)

Dominic D’Alessandro
President and CEO
Manulife Financial

Tom d’Aquino
President and CEO
Canadian Council of Chief Executive Officers

Paul Davenport
President
University of Western Ontario

Sheldon Ehrenworth
Founder
The Public Policy Forum

Hershell Ezrin
Former Principal Secretary to the Premier of Ontario

George Fleischmann
Managing Partner,
TNET: Management Consultants, Inc.

L. Yves Fortier, C.C., Q.C.
Chairman, Ogilvy Renault

Bruce Foster
Chair
Department of Policy Studies
Mount Royal College

Robert Gordon
President
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning

James Gray
Chairman
Canada West Foundation

Ray Hession
Former Deputy Minister
Government of Canada

Marilyn Knox
President, Nutrition
Nestlé Canada Inc.

Arthur Kroeger
Former Federal Deputy Minister

Huguette Labelle
Former President
Canadian International Development Agency

Carole Lafrance, C.M.
Governor
Canadian Chamber of Commerce

Claude Lajeunesse
President
Concordia University

The Hon. Marc Lalonde, P.C., O.C., Q.C.
Senior Counsel,
Stikeman Elliott LLP

Jack Lawrence
Chairman and CEO
Lawrence and Company Inc.

David Lindsay
President
Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario

The Honourable Donald S Macdonald and
Mrs. Adrian Merchant Macdonald

Cliff Mackay
President
Air Transport Association of Canada

The Hon. John P. Manley
Partner
McCarthy Tétrault

The Hon. Barbara J. McDougall, P.C., O.C., F.C.A.
Former Secretary of State for External Affairs

Les McIlroy
Former Chief of Staff to the Minister of Finance

Jack Mintz
University of Toronto

Professor Desmond Morton
Professor of History
McGill University

David Naylor
President
University of Toronto

The Hon. Gordon F. Osbaldeston
Former Secretary to the Cabinet and Clerk of the Privy Council

Ross Paul
President
University of Windsor

Andrew Petter
Dean of Law
University of Victoria
Former Attorney General of British Columbia

Roger Phillips
Former CEO
Ipsco Inc.

Sheryn Posen
Chief Operating Officer
Canada’s Sports Hall of Fame

Bruce Rawson, O.C., Q.C.
Former Deputy Minister
Alberta and Federal Government

The Hon. Bob Rae
Former Premier of Ontario (1990-1995)

Darcy Rezac
Managing Director
The Vancouver Board of Trade

Susan Reisler
Vice President
Media Profile

Jean Riley
Former Chair
National Arts Centre

Georgina Steinsky Schwartz
President
Imagine Canada

Graham W.S. Scott, C.M., Q.C.
Senior Partner
McMillan Binch Mendelsohn LLP
Former Deputy Minister - Government of Ontario

Senator Hugh Segal
President
Institute for Research in Public Policy

Ian H. Stewart, Q.C.
Corporate Director
Victoria, British Columbia

Harry Swain
Former Federal Deputy Minister

Paul Tellier
Former Secretary to the Cabinet and Clerk of the Privy Council of Canada
Former President and CEO of CN and Bombardier

Richard Van Loon
President Emeritus
Carleton University

Peter G. White
Former Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister

Lynton (Red) Wilson
Chairman
CAE Inc.

Doug Wright, O.C.
President Emeritus, University of Waterloo
Former Deputy Minister – Government of Ontario

Adam Hartley Zimmerman, O.C., B.A., F.C.A., LL.D., D.S.L.
Toronto

Mr. John Manley to visit Ho Chi Minh City and speak at CanCham

The former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance/Foreign Affairs/Industry John Manley will visit HCMC from March 5 to 17, 2006 and speak at a CanCham (Canadian Chamber of Commerce) luncheon. In August, 2004, Mr. Manley spoke at a sold out CanCham luncheon and is expected to do the same this time. He will share his views on the new Canadian government post elections and tell some more stories from his time in politics. Check with Cancham or the Consulate for the date of this luncheon.

http://canchamvietnam.org/

Manley to address the Automotive Conference for Executives

The Honourable John Manley has held several senior portfolios in the Canadian federal government. He has been recognized for his success in forging powerful cross-border partnerships and for his global initiatives in technology, education and business. Manley will focus his remarks on global trade, NAFTA and emerging trade blocks.

The Automotive Conference for Executives, scheduled for Quebec City this April, will focus on creative thinking and playing to win.
The Aftermarket Conference for Executives was developed by the Automotive Industries Association of Canada to provide professional management development and an overview of business trends for executives and senior management.
Some of the speakers presenting at this year's ACE include:....


... The event is scheduled for April 18-19, 2006 in Quebec City at the Chateau Frontenac Hotel. For more information, visit the AIA's website at www.aiacanada.com.

John Manley in Vietnam for Terry Fox Event

$26,450 collected from charity run given to cancer institute

The donations collected at the annual Terry Fox Run, held in November 2005 in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi, will be donated to the city’s Tumour Center for cancer research, the Canadian consulate said Wednesday

Over 10,000 runners participated and donated VND420 million (US$26,450). John Manley, Canadian deputy prime minister from January 2002 to December 2003, will arrive in Vietnam to hand over the money to the institute on March 6. Twenty five years ago, Terry Fox, an 18 year old Canadian with an amputated right leg due to bone cancer, began a journey across the North American country to raise funds for cancer research. The Terry Fox Run is organized in Vietnam by the Canadian embassy and local authorities. Reported by X.Q. – Translated by M.Phat Edit: more info on the Terry Fox Run in Vietnam Terry Fox Run 2005 in Ho Chi Minh City Ho Chi Minh City had their largest ever Terry Fox Run on Sunday the 4th December 2005 at Sai Gon South. About 4,600 participants took part in the special event to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Terry Fox Run in Ho Chi Minh City and the 25th anniversary of the Marathon of Hope. Close to 420 million dong raised from the Run will soon be donated to the HCMC Centre for Cancer and Tumour for their research programs. Organisers of the Run, the Consulate General of Canada and the Vietnam-Canada Friendship Association, would like to express their thanks to all the participants, volunteers and companies who contributed to the Run's success and hope to see you again in the Terry Fox Run 2006. Terry Fox Run 2005 in Hanoi - Thank you Reception On December 19, 2005, in the cold of winter and the warm environment of the cosy host, Mosaique Living Room, the Ambassador of Canada Gabriel-M. Lessard presented a cheque of 296 million dongs, proceeds of the Terry Fox Run 2005 in Hanoi, in the attendance of many corporate supporters and volunteers. The proceeds went to the Hanoi Cancer Hospital for their project of "Screening and Early Detection of Breast and Cervix Cancer of woman in Hanoi". With over 6,500 participants and an unprecedented amount of funds raised, the Terry Fox Run 2005 in Hanoi was a remarkable event to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Marathon of Hope in the fight against cancer. Since more money came in after the Thank you Reception, the total raised at the 2005 Run was close to 314 million dong. Thank you again to the corporate support committee for their efforts. We hope that we can still count on your contribution for the Terry Fox Run 2006.